Students at Sussex University protest against plans to privatise parts of the campus. Photograph: Martin Godwin

On Wednesday evening, after coming home from work, I found an email in my inbox from the vice-chancellor of my university. It told me that I was suspended from the University of Sussex, meaning I am unable to go on to campus, attend classes, or be involved with any societies and campaigns. I am unable to access teaching, resources, or even attend my doctor's surgery.

I am currently one of five students suspended from Sussex University on disconcertingly vague grounds. It appears to be because I am associated with the campaign against privatisation on campus, which has been part of a national mobilisation of students against the commodification of education. We have not been charged with any crime or told of the specific reasons for our suspension. My tutors, who have had no say in the matter, have expressed confusion and alarm. Our suspensions appear to have been made on the grounds of "health and safety", though precisely how our presence on campus compromises health and safety has yet to be explained.

The campaign at Sussex has been fighting privatisation on our campus for well over a year. The focus of the campaign is clear. It calls for a halt to the privatisation process instigated by management. It also demands an overhaul of democratic processes within the university. Since 2010, three campus occupations have been organised by students and staff members associated with the campaign. Each occupation was the product of frustration, after university management rebuffed attempts by university members to negotiate on the privatisation proposals.

Since September, the campaign has been standing alongside academic staff in their fight for fairer pay and has called for the management group to support a vision of education accessible to all. This is seen as intrinsically linked with the wider aims of the anti-privatisation campaign which fights for fairer pay, better working conditions across the board and democratic representation within university systems.

Just this week, we have seen nine university occupations, a strike from the three major higher education unions, the arrest of students by police – including the arrest of three-quarters of the sabbatical team of the University of London Union – and student suspensions from university grounds and activities. It is increasingly clear that universities are willing to take extreme measures to quash dissent, and intimidate those who are standing up.

We are drawing strength from support we have received over the last two days, which has been heart-warming and hugely appreciated. There have been close to 5,000 signatures on a petition in support of us, an early day motion has been tabled in parliament and more than 500 people attended a campus demonstration on Thursday afternoon, with another on Friday. It seems that the underlying structural issues in the governing of our universities are now being challenged..

The university's authoritarian response underlines how important our protests are. Instead of allowing us freedom of expression and a right to protest – a fundamental part of finding our political voices as young people – the university has instead attempted to manage and quash dissent.

I believe we have been targeted for suspension, to intimidate the growing campus movement against privatisation. Our occupation received national attention and the support of key political figures, activists and journalists. We are continuing to humiliate management. So they have tried to silence us while professing their support in principle for protest. Only yesterday afternoon, the university released a statement, saying they "fully support students' rights to protest lawfully". Their actions suggest otherwise.

Sussex has traditionally been a home for critical thought and challenging the status quo. Sitting at home surrounded by my fellow suspendees, it is easy to see how this is changing. The situation at Sussex is representative of the marketisation of higher education across the country – a damaging development for students, equality of opportunity, and the principle of free, universal education itself.

The campaign at Sussex will continue. It is a testament to the work that thousands are undertaking across our universities that the backlash to actions such as this is so strong. The relationships and solidarities that have been built at Sussex over the years cannot be easily destroyed. These sanctions can and will be challenged. In the meantime, I'll be taking up the offers of my tutors to meet me at the pub instead of on campus, and it seems that drinks are on them.